Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 29031.1340804401@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I wonder whether this design can be adapted to Windows? �IIRC we do >> not have a bulletproof data directory lock scheme for Windows. >> It seems like this makes few enough demands on the lock mechanism >> that there ought to be suitable primitives available there too. > I assume you're saying we need to make changes in the internal API, > right? Because we alreayd have a windows native implementation of > shared memory that AFAIK works, Right, but does it provide honest protection against starting two postmasters in the same data directory? Or more to the point, does it prevent starting a new postmaster when the old postmaster crashed but there are still orphaned backends making changes? AFAIR we basically punted on those problems for the Windows port, for lack of an equivalent to nattch. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: